New Rule Requires Doctors To Treat Trans Patients As Their Pretend Sex

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: daryllyn

So if I put on a tutu and waltz in while your daughter is in a female's locker room .you're cool...got it.
I'm not.

People are acting as if this an everyday occurrence when it's not.

It was already illegal to assault someone, in the bathroom, or anywhere else for that matter. And it's not as if assaults didn't happen in bathrooms prior to this uproar over the restrooms.

Trans people are way more likely to be assaulted in the bathroom than others, I'd bet.

But this thread isn't even about bathrooms to begin with.

OK. So, people could be sued for using the wrong pronouns? And there's a problem with giving preference to biological females with cancer who need a hysterectomy vs. someone who wants to just be less female?

This seems like a real waste of time for doctors and a good way to drive people out of medicine entirely.

Medical necessity should always go before elective procedures.

Now, if a doctor refused to do any kind of treatment on a person because they were trans...yes, I can see a lawsuit. That's obviously wrong. If a cancer patient or someone in the ER is a transwoman or transman--of course they need care from the available provider. Refusal to help should end in litigation. It's morally abhorrent to think someone would be denied lifesaving treatment because of their orientation--or anything really. They're human first and foremost.

But using the "wrong" pronouns? And placing a priority on patients with real medical need? That's not discrimination. Suing for that is just harassing doctors.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ketsuko

It's simple Ketsuko. Just tell that person she has a prostate cancer. Not difficult.

I've been thinking (on and off) for this for a while...

But how does a doctor legally puts his finger in an ass of a woman to exam a prostate?

I mean... If no cancer is found isn't that something that might be sued (in the land of the O'mighty Great)?

originally posted by: Dumbass

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ketsuko

It's simple Ketsuko. Just tell that person she has a prostate cancer. Not difficult.

I've been thinking (on and off) for this for a while...

But how does a doctor legally puts his finger in an ass of a woman to exam a prostate?

I mean... If no cancer is found isn't that something that might be sued (in the land of the O'mighty Great)?

So you thought about this for "a while" and the only thought you could think of contributing is... doctors putting fingers in asses?

The patient would have to provide consent to have a rectal exam. They'd consent to treatment, making a lawsuit unlikely. Now a surprise finger, without consent, would be a different story.

a reply to: SisterDelirium

Please please please read the rule from The Department of Health and Health Service.

a reply to: daryllyn

So you thought about this for "a while" and the only thought you could think of contributing is... doctors putting fingers in asses?

I'm sorry but that made me laugh.

Geez some posts here are so ridiculous.

originally posted by: Abysha
You say, "Miss, you have prostate cancer". Not rocket science. It's not like she doesn't know she has a prostate.

These threads are intentionally stupid just to give people something to stupidly bark at for a while. It's gross.

Why must a doctor be forced, BY LAW, to say something stupid such as "Miss, you have prostate cancer" instead of correctly saying "Mister, you have prostate cancer"?

If the transgender "knows" they have a prostate, and they accept that... why can't the transgender also "know" that they are really a male, and accept that instead?

It just doesn't make sense that a transgender would accept they have male organs, but not accept being called a male.

Why must their madness be forced on the sane, by law?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: SisterDelirium

Please please please read the rule from The Department of Health and Health Service.

I was going by the OP.

Plus, I followed the links and read the summary:

Section 1557 builds on prior Federal civil rights laws to prohibit sex discrimination in health care. The final rule requires that women be treated equally with men in the health care they receive and also prohibits the denial of health care or health coverage based on an individual’s sex, including discrimination based on pregnancy, gender identity, and sex stereotyping. The final rule also requires covered health programs and activities to treat individuals consistent with their gender identity.

Prohibiting the denial of health care seems completely reasonable.

The last sentence, though.... what does it mean to treat individuals consistent with their gender identity? A transwoman gets a mammogram and pap-smear then? A transman gets a prostate exam? What on earth does that last sentence mean?

As for pronouns... again, if this is the worst thing to have happen to you... sounds like a pretty good day to me.

a reply to: SisterDelirium

That is their interpretation (exaggerated or false interpretation) but an interpretation nonetheless.

All it did was reinforce the non-discrimination policy as per Title IX.

That's all there is to it. No addition. No subtraction.

a reply to: daryllyn


yeah yeah you're a mind type guy/girl/something


if someones mind says it's a gender it is just that.


I'm sorry I don't believe in 1s and 0s ... I don't believe there is a thin line between either minds. There will be a meridian but not an absolute. A woman and a man can have both minds imho. So I don't think a doctor should be focused on the mind, but purely on the body. I didn't want to make the comparison, but I kinda have to now. If a car is broke, a mechanic should not have to look who is driving that car, the mechanic should just fix the problem of the car, no matter if a man, a woman, a nonspecific or an animal is driving that car, so a doctor should be just looking at the body, no matter who is in the mind as well as a psychologist should look at the mind no matter what body it is in.

And yeah it is a ridiculous statement. I am aware of that. Easy for you huh to say to a Dumbass as that is the only thing I can think off? Well it actually goes a lot deeper because your society is just screwed up and you sue eachother for millions and millions. And I am sure some Dumbass will look for that one doctor that forgets to have them sign an approval just to sue them, because that is what todays society is. So I get why doctor would be careful with it.

a reply to: Dumbass

Y'all are pretty good at coming up with highly specific, super unlikely, hypothetical scenarios.

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: Dumbass

Y'all are pretty good at coming up with highly specific, super unlikely, hypothetical scenarios.

We Dumbasses rule the world. Haven't you noticed yet? You all will be labeled and divided but in the end be a Dumbass nonetheless.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
But no you had to be childish.

Don't lose sight of that point as you continue.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: SisterDelirium

That is their interpretation (exaggerated or false interpretation) but an interpretation nonetheless.

All it did was reinforce the non-discrimination policy as per Title IX.

That's all there is to it. No addition. No subtraction.

Geeze, doesn't any one research the original source of articles?

You know, so like you can be factually informed, instead of letting propaganda baiting lead you by the nose.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: lightedhype

The doctor could just refer to sex-specific organs in a generic manner.
"This organ here...has a tumor."...that way nobody gets offended.

Somebody is diagnosed with prostate cancer... yet the biggest issue on their mind is whether or not to sue the doctor in regards to his lack of euphamizing the wording of his diagnosis?

Tell me that isn't mental illness.

Even Saul Goodman couldn't make up such an asinine lawsuit.

I cut my left arm off . I uni-ambulant. Give me a toilet. Give me my rights...

Respect me world or I will cry.

Damn idiot forums...

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
All it did was reinforce the non-discrimination policy as per Title IX.

Title IX refers to biological sex, not the psycho-babble 'gender identity' fad that is all the rage in lib circles.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

originally posted by: Parafitt

I cut my left arm off . I uni-ambulant. Give me s toilet. Give me my rights...

Respect me world or I will cry.

Not sure your point.

My mom was a victim of the polio epidemic back in the 50s. I was 5.

She wasn't an amputee, but she was paralyzed.

Yes she was denied access to toilets, restaurants, businesses, etc - - - simply because of her disability.

That is the discrimination I grew up with.

I understand discrimination when someone doesn't fit the norm.

originally posted by: daryllyn
No. What's wrong is the amount of intolerance displayed in this thread.

lol



woof